On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 08:25:46 +0100, Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
Are you sure it was galloping and not trotting? I always
thought it was trotting. You don't need a camera to see all a
horses feet off the ground (at once) when its galloping --
it's pretty obvious.
http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0309/lm20.html
http://www.artandphysics.com/c_main2a.html
If you look at paintings of galloping horses before Muybridge you will
see
that the pattern of their legs is nothing like the pattern they really
make.
It's as if they are leaping from the both back legs at the same time and
landing on both forelegs.
Horses, and many other fast quadrupeds, DO move like this. But it is
called cantering, and is slow enough to be seen by the naked eye
(especialy if the animal is a giraffe!). That is what painters were
depicting. Galloping, which is the fastest form of locomotion a quaduped
can undertake, is too rapid to be seen, so painters were unable to depict
it. For them to do so now, post-Muybridge, is a bit of a con because they
are showing something that can't actually be seen.
A horse can walk, trot, canter, and gallop, in that order. If you've
never ridden a good horse at full gallop you have missed one of life's
thrills.
Riding a cow is another matter altogether.
John
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
